By the way, the ONLY VIABLE republican candidate who can roll back the clock on such establishmentarian abuses of power is Ron Paul.

“9/11 did change everything, and 9/11 truth can change it back again.”

I liked that quote a lot.

Jay

The Bush example relating to 9/11 is really about a failure of leadership, both with Bush and the Congress. Whereas FDR when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor sought to reassure Americans and call them to action, Bush with the help of the Congress tried to play on people’s fears in order to turn over their fundamental rights to the government. FDR said “follow me and together we will prevail”, Bush said “trust me, give me emergency powers and I’ll lick them”. FDR was a leader, Bush is an authoritarian demagogue.

Anything needs to change, if it doesn’t work.

This is the difference between a pragmatist and an ideologue. The pragmatist evaluates a policy by the effects that it has. The ideologue evaluates a policy by whether it corresponds to his or her principles.

I think the pragmatic approach is better. Sometimes people (ahem) treat principles as absolute and eternal, when in fact they are just a priori what you think is good.

Perhaps you misunderstand my distinction. Any political undertaking is in reaction to something. Government and its byproduct (legislation) would not be necessary if there weren’t problems to be solved.

That being said, the difference I intended to portray was that principled politics provides a response or answer based on principle. The Declaration and Constitution were both very much principled undertakings, and while they indeed were responding to current events, they were not hasty, emotionally charged, or intellectually shallow.

The fact is that in a pluralistic society there are going to be disagreements on matters of principle. And as much as I believe certain principles to be true, I cannot force others to adopt them. Thus, compromise and expediency become the hallmarks of politics.

Rick Koerber has a quote (on several I-15 billboards) that I like: Some things are true whether you believe them or not. This doesn’t imply that we can force others to believe in true principles, but they remain true regardless of any popular support or belief.

So, while others may disagree, the statesman can and should continue to fight for true principles. Sure, you get into a bit of discord if several people championing opposing causes claim to be doing so based on truth and principle, so that’s where your compromise comes in…

Each of these documents (and the actions that followed their institution) came about in direct response to problems. The passage of each required much wrangling. The Constitution required months of political jousting and sanctioned the repugnant practice of human slavery. But, you will say, the Constitution was based on principle. However, not everyone involved agreed on the principles behind the document. In fact, there was remarkable fluidity in the “principles” involved.

The fact is that in a pluralistic society there are going to be disagreements on matters of principle. And as much as I believe certain principles to be true, I cannot force others to adopt them. Thus, compromise and expediency become the hallmarks of politics. That’s reality.

The answer is to keep as many facets of life as possible out of the realm of politics.

Indeed. It’s like choosing once not to smoke. Each time you’re confronted with the opportunity, you’ve already made the decision and don’t need to weigh the pros and cons repeatedly.

But very often we see principle hardening into ideology. And that’s dangerous because people aren’t very good at changing it, even when it needs to be.

If an ideology is based on enduring principles, need it ever change? As the anonymous quote above teaches, one can change tactics while remaining consistent to principle. Even within an ideology there is maneuvering room for implementing the proposed principles.

An example dear to Connor’s heart: abstinence-based sex education.

Dear to my heart? Obviously you’re referring to government-sanctioned, public education-sponsored sex education. That’s not dear to my heart in the slightest.

But very often we see principle hardening into ideology. And that’s dangerous because people aren’t very good at changing it, even when it needs to be.

An example dear to Connor’s heart: abstinence-based sex education. Many times it has been shown not to work, but its advocates are unlikely to dump it because anti-sex is a part of their ideology. At those times I find myself wishing they were less principled and more pragmatic. I’d rather have a moral pragmatist in office than a moral ideologue any day.

Ah, finding the balance.

BTW, I hate the ’9/11 changed everything’ meme. What better way to trash our principles. They think 9/11 is the worst threat we’ve ever faced? Fleh.

Of course that could only happen if the people of our nation were active and informed in their political decisions and if they were sufficiently self-aware to know the principles that they individually believed in.

::: tear :::

For nostalgia’s sake, here is comment #1 on this blog. Ooooh…